Apple is appealing against a court order that it unlock the iPhone, calling it "unprecedented".

But in its latest court filing, the DOJ claims Apple helped China's government to access more than 4,000 iPhones.

Farook and his wife killed 14 people in the Californian city last December before police fatally shot them.

'Liberty and rights'

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) wants Apple to create a so-called "back door" that would unlock Farook's iPhone. It says the phone may contain crucial evidence, but has been unable to break into it.

Apple has so far refused to comply with the court order, obtained last month. The company's chief executive, Tim Cook, has previously called the court order "dangerous", "chilling" and "unprecedented".

It has argued the government is asking for a security hack that could be exploited by both governments and criminals.

The DoJ said Apple's stance was "corrosive" to institutions trying to protect "liberty and rights".

Apple's lawyer, Bruce Sewell, told reporters that the tone of the latest DOJ court submission "reads like an indictment".

He said: "Everybody should beware because it seems like disagreeing with the Department of Justice means you must be evil and anti-American, nothing could be further from the truth."

Prosecutors claim Apple's own data shows that China demanded information from Apple regarding more than 4,000 iPhones in the first half of 2015, and Apple produced data 74% of the time.

But Mr Sewell said the new filing relied on thinly sourced news reports to inaccurately suggest that Apple had colluded with the Chinese government to undermine [iPhone] buyers' security.

The DOJ claimed in its court filing that Apple had attacked the FBI investigation as "shoddy" and tried to portray itself as a "guardian of Americans' privacy".

This "rhetoric is not only false, but also corrosive of the very institutions that are best able to safeguard our liberty and our rights: the courts, the Fourth Amendment, longstanding precedent and venerable laws, and the democratically elected branches of government", the DOJ said.

Support for Apple

Apple has appealed against the original court order, arguing that it violates the company's constitutional rights.